Saturday, August 4, 2007

Mark H. Rachesky, M.D. purchased 33.4% (over 40 Million) shares of Lions Gate stock one week prior to the scheduled opening of Michael Moore's controversial film "Sicko" which happens to be distributed by Lions Gateand the Weinstein Co. (SEC filing can be found here). The exact day of purchase was June 30, 2007. Sicko debuted in the U.S. on June 22, 2007, earning $4.6 million in 441 theatres and achieving the 4th highest opening weekend for a documentary, after Farienhiet 9/11.

Dr. Rachesky is the founder and President of MHR Fund Management LLC and affiliates who are investment managers of various private funds. Dr. Rachesky is currently on the Board of Directors of Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. who focus on the acquisition, development and commercialization of medically important, novel pharmaceutical products for the treatment of life-threatening diseases, including diabetes and cancer. He is also an investment broker for NovaDel Pharma Inc. (AMEX: NVD), a specialty pharmaceutical company who targets candidates suffering from nausea, insomnia, migraine headaches and disorders of the central nervous system (CNS). In addition DR. Rachesky is the beneficial owner of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. owning approximately 29% of the company with 3,786,799 shares. He is also the Director of Neose Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTEC) which is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of next-generation therapeutic proteins that are competitive with best in class protein drugs currently on the market. In 2003, the market for therapeutic proteins grew by almost 19% to $37 billion, and is predicted to achieve sales of over $90 billion by 2010. Recently the Doctor also has invested in Emisphere Technologies, Inc. another bio pharmaceutical company charting new frontiers in drug delivery. Emisphere has strategic alliances with world-leading pharmaceutical companies

Originally, Lion’s Gate had planned a wide release of SICKO in over 1,600 theaters nationwide June 29, 2007 but one week prior to the release the number was reduced to a mere 400. This decision was made the same week Dr. Rachesky purchased Lions Gate stock. Could this be pure coincidence?

The debut of SICKO was the fourth-highest grossing documentary since record keeping began in 1982. If it was such a success why would Lionsgate reduce the amount to be released? When SICKO was shown at the Cannes Film Festival a month prior on May 19th the film was loudly applauded and hailed by critics. The movie has practically disappeared from sight. Can someone please tell me why?Did Dr Rachesky purchase the stock for controlling interests in Lions Gate? Controlling Interest is when the parent company owns a majority of the common stock that allows the shareholder major influence on the company. Normally for one to obtain controlling interests in a company one would purchase at least 51% of all shares however, in some cases a single entity can essentially maintain control with only 33.4% of the outstanding shares. Ironically, this is the exact percentage of shares purchased by Dr. Rachesky.

In the film SICKO Michael Moore turns his attentions toward the topic of health care in the United States in this documentary that weighs the plight of the uninsured against the record profits of the pharmaceutical industry. Moore interviews a number of people who have been left broke by medical bills even though they were fully insured, and explains how the corporate drive for profits has left numerous people in financial and medical disarray. After hearing that detainees in Guantanamo have access to free health care, Moore assembles a group of WorldTradeCenter rescue workers to travel to Cuba in order to get the medical help they need for ailments they incurred in 2001. Moore's film debuted at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival. ~ Perry Seibert, All Movie Guide

If Dr Rachesky purchased Lions Gate shares for controlling power is it safe to ask why? There are many debates and arguments as the the accuracy of Moore’s film. What interests me is if there were no truth and validity to the documentary why would someone go to so much trouble to make sure it is not a success and limit the amount theaters where the film can be seen? Sounds to me like this film has left the health care industry shaking in their boots and they don't want us to know the truth.

Also, although the midwestern and west/east states (basically: the blue states) will handle health care to the best of their ability all of the other states--the states where the problem is at its worst currently, in fact--will not do a damn thing. Same as they are doing now.

I really don't think a person can purchase stock then control the company's decisions within a week. You need to wait for a shareholder meeting or board meetings or something similar. It just doesn't work like you are implying.

My guess is he the doc saw the movie, thought it nailed the issue, and wanted to get in on the profits. Just because event (a) happens just before event (b) does not mean (a) caused (b)....and that should be pretty apparent in this case.

I've worked for big corporations long enough, and if managers don't like something, they call up and let you know you're a$$ is on the line if you don't comply. If this guy owns that much stock, he could easily threaten the jobs of everyone that works at the company.

He could be a nice guy, but I really doubt it. He'd being trying to promote the movie if he was.

It's everyone's duty to go to a theater and see Sicko. I've gone twice. Take a friend. If you can get a conservative Republican to go all the better. We have to get the word out.

Response to Ron Paul link: Ron Paul is great, but he's against socialized health care. Actually he's against health insurance companies for minor illnesses, and things we should negotiate lower health care costs with providers on our own. They may work if he was our doctor, but for the most part I think we would be screwed.

Placing the responsibility for access to medical care for the uninsured/underinsured at the State level Only is useless (in fact it's same rhetoric , do nothing suggestions from the provided by many Republican Government ) . Without Federal backing, many states can not and will not handle the financial burden alone (psst... The Feds know this as well).

If the Feds can administrate a war, I think they should be able to handle government mandated medical care for all U.S. Citizens. The unfortunate reality is that much of our government is run by "Big Business" interest.To Federalize Healthcare "does take a lot of money out of some very large businesses". They would not go under OR little profits, but they would not be allowed to be so "GREEDY". Business people are not "healers". The bottom line and health care just don't work together well.